Have not registered will not register for Ping. Facebook is enough craziness for me, and I use it infrequently. I think the loss of facebook cooperation deal is gonna make it difficult for apple. Keeping up with privacy, new features, spammers, hackers etc is a full time job, that would have been better done outsourced then in-house. Especially for hardware/software company like Apple.

I cringed a little when Steve announced Ping (so close to Bing too), but perhaps I'm wrong. We'll see how this pans out.

Sorry, this went off topic, I'm not suggesting spam is any way a "hack" - the original point back there was that all security should be dealt with before the event (pro-actively) - my point was that this is not possible. Hackers, virus developers and spammers will constantly find new ways to annoy.

Yes they have, they've got google, bing and any other search provider you can list- it's all there in google. Providing alternatives is good for the consumer.

Google need apple as much as the inverse. Google betrayed apple and deserve a big slap.

Anyone has the right to release a new technology, or to provide alternatives to existing products and services. To sit on the board of a company obtaining useful inside information and then go into competition with them is frankly despicable. I don't see Apple entering the search market?

Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?

People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.

And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.

Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.

This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.

Did you dream this or do you live in a different reality? Apple never announced Facebook functionality related to Ping. They reportedly tried to have integration with Facebook, but couldn't work out a deal. When asked about it, they said the financial terms were unacceptable. Oh well. I don't know what's "nasty or amateurish" about that.

If this was "totally expected," then why wasn't the issue dealt with proactively?

I take it you've never launched a service like this?

Apple has created an open communication medium which is bound to receive a lot of attention so this is going to be an uphill battle for them. As an experienced web developer I do not envy them the task of tackling this issue. I will guess at one thing, though: they probably did underestimate this. But they've definitely got the resources and motivation to explore solutions.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

So you're suggesting that Apple released this with no protection at all in place? That seems a little far fetched.

I've got more levels of spam protection on my servers than I can list - I still get spam.

The company that produce a system that 100% eradicates all spam will be very, very rich very quickly.

The protection you're talking about doesn't exist yet, so how could it be put in place?

EDIT No doubt the usual filtering will now be added to - lists of IP addresses, server, domains, key strings etc. etc.

I'm only going on what others are saying. There doesn't seem to be any up-front indication that any form of spam protection is in place. As another post said, allowing users to mark accounts they're getting spam from would greatly help Apple in shutting them down. Maybe it is all in the background, which would mean you're right that spammers have found a way around it.

My point was that something is better than nothing. Like you said, no spam protection is 100% effective. But protection can help weed out the spam attacks that's already in place, forcing spammers to come up with new ways to get around it. In whch case, we come to your point in reacting to brand-new attacks.

It seems that spam would have happened to Ping sooner or later. Spam protection would have only delayed it.

Actually, it makes sense that Apple is restricting their "social media" concept to iTunes. They're not trying to be another FaceBooka community for anyone and everyone. It's a "niche" community of music lovers and fans (and perhapshopefullyeventually, book and movie lovers as well). If they open it up to "any browser at any time", they run into all sorts of issues regarding security, browser compatibility, hardware compatibility, etc. If it's kept in the iTunes fold, then there's the assurance that if iTunes works on the user's computer, then Ping will work as well.

Ping is limited to iTunes - but that includes the iPhone and iPod Touch as well.

Did you dream this or do you live in a different reality? Apple never announced Facebook functionality related to Ping. They reportedly tried to have integration with Facebook, but couldn't work out a deal. When asked about it, they said the financial terms were unacceptable. Oh well. I don't know what's "nasty or amateurish" about that.

Cult of Mac had this to say about how "Apple never announce Facebook functionality":

"On the one hand, we have the above screenshot, taken from Apple’s own Ping web page just this morning.

It clearly says you can connect Ping to Facebook. But. You can’t."

Here's another reporter's take:

"I'd heard you could find your Facebook friends with Ping and thought that would turn up a huge well of smart music fans to follow. But last night Facebook pulled the plug on Apple's interface between Ping and Facebook. Facebook says that Ping could cause "site instability" and "infrastructure" problems. "

Steve now vilifies Facebook publicly. That is not a nice way to do business. You and I can disagree on that, its OK.

Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?

People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.

And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.

why can't google create android? What are you talking about? The point is that schiller did not go away and create a new company - what he did was forge partnership with a fellow IT company, sit on the board and then go away and start emulating their services. Apple did not do the same in return.

We're not talking about android and iOS, we're talking about the phone. That's Apple's flash point, and I entirely agree with them.

I don't need to be an architect to know I'd want to put a lock on the door of a bank.

"Since Ping does not feature spam or URL filtering..."

As "an experienced web developer", you think that might have helped?

I'm sure Apple wants URLs to be available for sharing, so I'm curious what sort of URL filtering you have in mind? They've got a few traditional options, such as requiring a degree of participation, but that's easy to circumvent. Or they can disable URL sharing for replies, but that's the nuclear option. It isn't as trivial a decision as people make it out to be.

Spam filtering? This is even more the case. Developing efficient spam filtering, aside from being a bandaid on a gaping wound rather than a cure, is even more difficult to implement. If Apple does take that avenue it is a solution they will have to develop through a game of studying a cat-and-mouse exchange. Ideally they'll aim for a solution which attacks the problem at an earlier stage.

The sarcasm is fine given I was sarcastic initially, but the point I want to stress is that it is extremely hard to appreciate the complexity of what this problem can become without an understanding of how extensive this spammer vs. exchange medium is on big platforms, be it a social network, forum, or even email.

I'm only going on what others are saying. There doesn't seem to be any up-front indication that any form of spam protection is in place. As another post said, allowing users to mark accounts they're getting spam from would greatly help Apple in shutting them down. Maybe it is all in the background, which would mean you're right that spammers have found a way around it.

My point was that something is better than nothing. Like you said, no spam protection is 100% effective. But protection can help weed out the spam attacks that's already in place, forcing spammers to come up with new ways to get around it. In whch case, we come to your point in reacting to brand-new attacks.

It seems that spam would have happened to Ping sooner or later. Spam protection would have only delayed it.

And my point is you're criticising the unknown as fact. There is spam prevention in place - there is no such thing as spam proofing. Databases of offendors, IP addresses take time, and no matter what is in place it keeps coming. It happens on facebook, it happens on my POP accounts, so why should PING be immune? Odd logic.

Ok, so you're contradicting yourself in your own post. Why isn't Google allowed to create Android if it allows them to further increase the population to which they serve their ads?

People who work together one day and then break off to start an independent company the next happen all the time in businesses small and large. As similar as Android and iOS are, it's not like Google ran away with a copy of the exact code of iOS and just reskinned it and called it a different product. They still had to do the work for themselves to make Android a successful product.

And for the record, Google's main goal is to serve us ads through their various products (search being their biggest one) and if you haven't noticed, Apple has entered into the ad market with iAds.

The ethical thing for Schmidt to do would have been to resign from Apple's board as soon as Google started thinking about developing Android.

Nobody's saying Google should not have developed Android - they just shouldn't have sat on Apple's board gathering inside information while developing a competitive product. There was a LOT of information Apple had that should not have been shared with a competitor - Apple's analysis of the mobile market, Apple's plans in future phone development and advertising, etc.

Without Apple's analysis of the market, Google may not have realized it could be so lucrative. Remember, everyone outside of Apple was saying the iPhone would fail. Google might have thought that as well, and delayed or stopped developing Android altogether if they hadn't seen Apple's internal numbers. That would have given Apple probably 2 more years of a head start.

If they can do cut and paste in only three years, this shouldn't be beyond their abilities.

You smell like a troll.

I think it is an incredibly difficult process to implement, but if anyone can do it, it is Apple. They've got the talent, resources, and determination to achieve successes other companies cannot and if they feel Ping is worth that battle, they'll take it up.

As for copy and paste, I'll take a top-of-class solution to something so important a little bit late over a hacked-together frustrating solution kicked out the door just to add a feature on a bullet-point list. Thanks.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

Just what we need, another opportunity for spammers.
I haven't even upgraded to iTunes 10, but I'm just hoping you can avoid even having Ping.

iTunes 10 is nice. You have to specifically choose to turn on Ping, so no worries there. My finger is on the trigger, I think I'll let Apple sort out them teething problems first. Apple has huge experience moderating the discussion forums and iTunes reviews and ratings. Give Apple a chance.

I understand that and I may have been overly loose with my translation. From the angle of a software platform I take those statements to relate to burdensome technical implementation (though I suppose that may not have been the case), thus complicated. In retrospect that wouldn't apply if Steve Job's disapproval had nothing to do with technical feasibility (e.g. simple unreasonable demands, such as payment).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

It is a pejorative term. Get real. Look in a dictionary. Here's some synonyms:

Apple has created an open communication medium which is bound to receive a lot of attention so this is going to be an uphill battle for them. As an experienced web developer I do not envy them the task of tackling this issue. I will guess at one thing, though: they probably did underestimate this. But they've definitely got the resources and motivation to explore solutions.

Apple was probably too optimistic and will implement solutions as needed. This is not blind worship, just common sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GQB

What a shame. This could have been a great tool to let musicians get control of their business, and its being ruined by vandals right out of the box.

Don't worry, Ping is destined to be as big for music and movies as Facebook is. Apple is never perfect. But they strive for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

It is a pejorative term. Get real. Look in a dictionary. Here's some synonyms:

Ping just might be the most useless product that Apple has ever introduced. I tried it out. I will agree that a social network needs "critical mass" before success really comes in. But I see absolutely no purpose to this waste of hard drive space.

For those who might have missed the ramblings of our two resident misanthropes, I am providing all their postings in this thread so far in one place, for your convenient viewing and troll-feeding.

For those of you ticked off, you know now how some of us feel...... \

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackintosh

Apple has always had their head in their butt when it comes to security. They have gotten away with this by being a niche market. One day they are going to get bitten so badly it's gonna really hurt.

But this is what you get when you can't partner with existing services and you have such a huge ego you feel you can do everything better yourself. Right Steve?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

This sort of thing seems to be getting more and more common with Apple. They seem to announce their stuff long before any partners have signed up. Newspapers and magazines are another example. We heard all about how every magazine would be available and how Apple was going to change the whole industry, but the reality is VERY different.

Now Apple announces Facebook functionality before any deal is cut, while at the same time trying to use a public statment by the CEO to vilify Facebook and make them into some sort of greedy bad guys. That sort of negotiation tactic is nasty and amateurish.

This sort of sleazy tactic is far beneath Apple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

But computer software IS dealt with proactively to protect users against hackers. Security is baked-in, from the ground up.

Or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

Losing Google as a partner is likely to hurt them badly in the end. Apple needs search. They got nothing now. They can't do it by themselves, given that they have been trying for years and have yet to implement anything reasonable even in the App Store.

Crawling to Microsoft for Bing is pathetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

So you are saying that the lack of browser accessibility is a feature?

Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

Seemingly, they approached Facebook with an unacceptable offer. Steve already said that Apple was unwilling to pay enough to inspire Facebook to do the deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

Recent events suggest otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

Are spammers posting to public message boards a "new hack"?

Did Apple "do all you can do pro-actively before release"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtron

Cult of Mac had this to say about how "Apple never announce Facebook functionality":

"On the one hand, we have the above screenshot, taken from Apples own Ping web page just this morning.

It clearly says you can connect Ping to Facebook. But. You cant."

Here's another reporter's take:

"I'd heard you could find your Facebook friends with Ping and thought that would turn up a huge well of smart music fans to follow. But last night Facebook pulled the plug on Apple's interface between Ping and Facebook. Facebook says that Ping could cause "site instability" and "infrastructure" problems. "

Steve now vilifies Facebook publicly. That is not a nice way to do business. You and I can disagree on that, its OK.

I understand that and I may have been overly loose with my translation. From the angle of a software platform I take those statements to relate to burdensome technical implementation (though I suppose that may not have been the case), thus complicated. In retrospect that wouldn't apply if Steve Job's disapproval had nothing to do with technical feasibility (e.g. simple unreasonable demands, such as payment).

I disagree that 'onerous' must be taken as a pejorative term.
Perhaps Steve Jobs was actually being sincere?
Which is to say, using the term as defined.

Nowhere is it defined as "complicated". Sorry.

This one has run its course. Let's just use a dictionary and agree with what the words mean.